There has been much to celebrate over recent years in relation to securing cross-party acknowledgement of the importance of early childhood education. With 93 per cent of three- and four-year-olds taking up their 15 hours per week of early education, this is close to becoming a truly universal entitlement.
But COVID-19 shows the fragility of these achievements. During lockdown, even many vulnerable children and children of critical workers who could have continued to attend a setting did not. And although the early years is theoretically now open to all children, as of the start of July, attendance was only 23 per cent of the number who would usually be attending, rising to 30 per cent in state-funded nurseries and 40 per cent in reception classes.
Although the numbers are creeping back up, many are concerned that the number of children in settings will not be back to normal in September, and perhaps not for some time to come. Multiple reports are predicting mass closures of settings due to the financial pressures that result from this, particularly in disadvantaged areas where income from parent-paid fees will be most scant.
This may mean that, for some, the supposedly universal entitlement becomes inaccessible.
We are at real risk of going backwards with the hard won successes of early years policy. Worryingly, in many respects that was already the direction of travel, as we set out in our recent report for the Sutton Trust, Getting the Balance Right.
Progress in closing the achievement gap at age five has gone into reverse since 2017, after a decade of slow but steady improvement. Government policy has shifted focus away from universal early education that benefits all children and targeted programmes such as the two-year-old offer that seek to close the gap. Instead, the priority has been on regressive policies that provide financial support for working parents, potentially earning up to £100k each, through the 30 hours offer and tax-free childcare.
The 30 hours policy has directed both financial and educational resources towards middle-income families. The most disadvantaged families who do not meet the minimum income requirements fail to qualify at all, giving the families in greatest need no additional financial support and their children no additional educational opportunities. Those just above the threshold get minimal financial benefit from the 30 hours compared to childcare support through Universal Credit or Tax Credits, although at least their children are potentially getting the same number of hours of early education as their more advantaged peers.
The increasing amount of public money spent on the early years is mainly supporting families who are not those in greatest need.
There are few levers within the system to support closing the gap, and these are currently under-resourced. Early Years Pupil Premium is claimed in respect of only 8 per cent of funded three- and four-year-olds compared to 27 per cent of pupils in schools and is less than a third of the amount the latter receive. The disadvantage supplement accounts for only 6 per cent of spend under the Early Years National Funding Formula, less than the 10 per cent local authorities have discretion to spend, and compares unfavourably to the 18 per cent spent under the schools formula.
There is also significant under-investment in the sector’s most important resource: its staff. The early years workforce remains underpaid and undervalued with insufficient access to continuing professional development. There is little in the way of resources or incentives to encourage staff to improve their qualifications. Those that do have insufficient prospect of improving their pay and conditions as a result.
Yet without significant investment in staff qualifications, it is unlikely that we will see the significant shift in quality of provision that could make most difference to children’s learning and development. The government’s early years workforce strategy in 2017 was a missed opportunity that did not address the disastrous decline in numbers registering to train as early years teachers, or the challenges of recruitment and retention in the sector. Ultimately, only significant investment and a long-term strategy will have an impact.
The central message of our report was that government needs to have a joined-up early years strategy. Policies to support working parents must be working in tandem with policies to support children’s development, not pulling in opposite directions.
Quality must not be sacrificed simply to create a short-term headline about more places or more hours or to win votes in middle England through subsidies for the middle classes. Alongside provision of universal entitlements, there needs to be funding targeted where there is greatest need.
As the Social Mobility Commission have previously commented: 'It is a false economy to invest in early education to a level insufficient to improve child outcomes and reduce inequalities.'
- Getting the balance right
- Beatrice Merrick is chief executive and Nathan Archer is an Associate of Early Education
